H. of R.] "The miserable have no other medicine, Removal of the Indians. [MAY 24, 1830. if this measure shall be carried by a single vote, or by your partake of what the providence of God had given to him casting vote, Mr. Speaker-and no one more sincerely and his fathers as an inheritance-"that, as original wishes you such an accession of honor to that you have tenant of the soil, by immemorial possession, he holds already reaped in this struggle, and which never before, a title beyond and superior to the British Crown and her in the history of legislation, has been placed by fortune colonies, and to all adverse pretensions of our confederaso repeatedly in the power of a presiding officer in a single tion and subsequent union." Sir, we meet the honorable contest-the good which shall be done, even in the life- gentlemen who so fondly revert to the rights of these early time of those who are in the van of opposition, shall give and first lords of the soil, and deny that the Indian had to them a mortifying retrospection. But, sir, I will neither either ownership, proprietary right, or tenancy by occutriumph in anticipation, nor permit myself to use an ex- paucy, to the lands over which he roamed. It is commonly pression offensive to the most delicate of this humane and said, our ownership exists by purchase from the Indian, Conscientious opposition, however much its earnestness and that he was proprietor and sovereign of the soil. may have obliterated the memory of the recent past, and But both are said, only because he was found upon the though it acts with a terrible energy in an opposite direc- continent at its discovery. That he was in possession of tion to that which it took some three years since. Among portions of land, which were in savage cultivation, over those, sir, who have most cause to be offended, I can never which he roamed for game and war-that several of the theless look with serenity upon this opposition, and calmly tribes had designated natural boundaries as the limits of detect the elements which compose it; admire the arrange their hunting grounds, and claimed such an exclusive use ment which has embodied the discontented in this House of it, against other tribes, no one will deny. But did the into a single phalanx, presenting uniformly, at every hour extent of their natural rights against each other give such in the night and the day, when a vote is to be taken, an a title or occupancy to all that they aggregately claimed, unbroken body of philanthropists, uniting in the single as to include a power to exclude others from seeking this chorus, continent as a resting place from persecution and want, and making it the land of civilization and christianity Sir, they were proprietors of what they used, so long as it was And, in looking at the opposition out of this House, I, sir, used; but not sovereigns of any part. The one denotes a must be permitted to distinguish from the deluded, and, to thing or place in possession: the other is, strictly, an artispeak of him with respect, the venerable man who pre- ficial term, applicable only to that state of society where sided at the meeting which issued the New York memorial, Government is sufficiently advanced to class those living thinking of him only as bearing a name associated with re- under it in the community of nations; where there is indicollections which Americans love to cherish, and as an viduality of possession and pursuit, and a recognition of artist whose works will live when we are dead; and, if the leading principles of conduct between man and man public report has assigned the authorship of "William with customs or laws to enforce the observance of them; Penn" to its proper owner, mistaken as are the principles and that compacted existence of a people, which separates of that publication, misled as the writer is, in the very heat them from others, and gives to them the name and attitude of this controversy, I do not hesitate to bear witness to his of a nation, in its relative position with other nations. Sobeing a mau whose name will be put high upon the cata-vereignty over soil is the attribute of States; and it can logue of christian philanthropists, when our contentions never be affirmed of tribes living in a savage condition, shall be buried in the grave of coming generations. The without any of the elements of civilization, as they were cause we advocate needs not the proscription of its adver- exhibited in the nations of antiquity, or in those of modern saries; and the principles which sustain us, should induce times; whether they live under the pressure of Asiatic suus to forbear, and to repress resentment at opposition, ex-perstitions, or in the emancipated privileges of christencept where opposition has become misrepresentation. dom. Among the Indians of North America, an approThough in its consequences it may seem to bear hard upon priation of the soil to individuals was unknown-nor had the interests of a State of which I am a citizen, I am glad any of the tribes any institutions to indicate that the proto see it, for it will be another assurance to the world, that perty in the soil was in the tribe, as was the case among though our countrymen may have a mistaken subject of the ancient Germans, except the fluctuating limits which excitement, they are always alive to what may seem to press a stronger tribe chose to assume, from time to time, to upon human rights; and that, in this land, nothing can be prevent hunting excursions within them by a weaker. done to affect them, which will not stand the test of rigid Theirs was the hunter's state, and in a lower condition of and jealous scrutiny. It assures the world, too, that what it than had been known before by civilized man. Their ever may be done, in this instance, can only be done with hunger being appeased, from flood and field, individuals, the consent of a majority of twenty-four States; the great- or parties of each tribe, roved over the land in pursuit of er number of them having no interest in the question, and game, without regard to the place in which it was taken; therefore without temptation to be misled-thus presump and their wanderings in the chase knew no bounds, extively vindicating whatever may be the result. cept as they were regulated by the quantity of game, or But, sir, I proceed to the discussion of the subject: and as they ascertained the existence of some other tribe, using the first point of inquiry is, what was the condition of the the adjacent land for the same purpose. Without formal Indian, in regard to his right to land or soil upon this con- conventions to fix boundaries, the tribes in the neighbortinent, before and at the time of the arrival of the white hood of each other, in the course of time, knew the huntman? This inquiry into the Indian's ownership of the soil, ing grounds as they were separately claimed. A trespass when he was first visited by the colonists, is forced upon by either upon the grounds of another, was followed by us by the manner in which the whole question has been individual contentions or tribal war. Wars taught the argued by our adversaries in and out of this House. I savage prudence, or rather how to smother his revenge, would willingly have avoided it, if it had not been made until time or accident placed it in his power to slake his the source of fruitful imposition in this controversy. For demon remembrances of supposed or actual wrongs in effect, and to produce a sympathy to interfere with the the blood and entrails of his enemy. When the relative understanding of the argument in support of the measure strength of tribes prevented one from extirpating or ennow before us, the Indian has been called the owner of the soil-that he generously permitted our ancestors to In the course of the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker Stevenson gave the casting vote three times in favor of the bill, and each of them were vital questions. slaving another, the fears of each conceded to the other rights, not to the land or soil, but to the fish in its streams, and to the animals on its surface; and this usufructuary enjoyment was all that the Indian claimed. Can such a use of a country give a property in the soil or did it, by the law of nature, empower the ladian to exclude the white man from making a settlement within the limits of the hunting grounds of the former, and maintaining his possession by force, if he had ability to do so? But, sir, this question is settled for us; and, until this controversy began, I had not supposed it would have been overlooked or denied, and it is with some surprise that I have heard it stated, in the course of this debate, that it was the generous consent of the Indians which permitted our ancestors to begin the settlement of these glorious States, that we were intruders upon their possessions, and were now to repay their kindnesses to our forefathers by driving them into annihilation. Vattel says, folio 92, sec tion 81: "The whole earth is appointed for the nourishment of the inhabitants: but it would be incapable of doing so, was it uncultivated. Every nation, is, then, obliged, by the law of nature, to cultivate the ground that has fallen to its share; and it has no right to expect or require assistance from others any further than as the land in its possession is incapable of furnishing it with necessaries. Those people, like the ancient Germans and modern Tartars, who, having fertile countries, disdain to cultivate the earth, and choose rather to live by rapine, are wanting to themselves, and deserve to be exterminated as savage and pernicious beasts. There are others, who, to avoid agriculture, would live only by hunting and their flocks. This might, doubtless, be allowed in the first ages of the world, when the earth, without cultivation, produced more than was sufficient to feed its few inhabitants. But at present, when the human race is so greatly multiplied, it could not subsist if all nations resolved to live in that manner. Those who still retain this idle life, usurp more extensive territories than they would have occasion for, were they to use honest labor, and have, therefore, no reason to complain, if other nations, more laborious and too closely confined, come to possess a part. Thus, though the conquest of the uncivilized empires of Peru and Mexico was a notorious usurpation, the establishment of many colonies on the continent of North America may, on their confining themselves within just bounds, be extremely lawful. The people of these vast conntries rather overran than inhabited them." And the same writer, in his chapter upon the establishment of a nation in a country, remarks: "There is another celebrated question, to which the discovery of the New World has principally given rise. It is asked, if a nation may lawfully take possession of a part of a vast country, in which there are found none but erratic nations, incapable, by the smallness of their numbers, to people the whole. We have already observed, in establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that these nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, and which they are unable to settle and cultivate. Their removing their habitations through these immense regions cannot be taken for a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up, finding land of which these nations are in no particular want, and of which they make no actual and constant use, may lawfully possess it, and establish colonies there. We have already said that the earth belongs to the human race in general, and was designed to furnish it with subsistence. If each nation had resolved, from the beginning, to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. People have not, then, deviated from the views of nature, in confiuing the Indians within narrow limits. However, we cannot help praising the moderation of the English puritans who first settled in New England, who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land they resolved to cultivate" And. sir, is not this commendable moderation in regard to the Indians, which we now propose to pursue, but which gentlemen [H. or R. from New England interpose to defeat, with an unfilial dis- Sir, God, in his providence, had been pleased to reveal himself to the man of another continent-his purposes towards him, in time and for eternity—what was his rational condition, his rights over the earth, though the penalty of his transgression-how the proper use of it would conduce to his comfort, and the increase of his species, and, by binding men in communities, would keep alive a social devotion to his Maker, and the remembrance of a hereafter, in which men are to live a life of immortality. It was this providence which gave to our fathers the right to plant themselves by the side of the Indian-to draw themselves, and to teach their degraded brother to draw, from their mother earth, bounties which he neither knew how to produce nor to enjoy. What though the Indian roved through the forests of America cotemporaneously with the wanderings of God's chosen people in their escape from Egyptian bondage-time could give to him no right to more of the soil thanhe could cultivate; and the decree which denied him to be lord of the domain, was the Almighty's command to his creatures to till the earth. Compare the present population of the world with its magnitude; and, if men were still roving tribes, without civilization or fixed habitation, its spontaneous productions of vegetables, fish, fowl, and animals, would be sufficient to prevent mankind from degenerating to the condition of cannibals. Sir, the civilized man of Europe pinched by want, and worn down by intolerance, neither needed the edicts of popes, nor the charters of kings, to authorize him to make this western world his refuge. His wants admonished him to seek a land where his labors H. or R.] Removal of the Indians. [MAY 24, 1830. Nations. They are termed, in the treaty, the subjects of England, and are distinguished from other Indians living within the grants of the King, who are called the friends of England, but had not acknowledged themselves to be subjects. In regard to the latter, it is sufficient to assert, what cannot be denied, that all the tribes in the provinces, or on their borders, had acknowledged themselves to be subjects of the King previous to 1756, and no tribe more pointedly than the Cherokees. As early as the year 1730, they acknowledged England's King as their monarch, and received from the hands of his envoy, Sir Alexander Cumming, a commander in chief for the Cherokee nation. They sent a deputation of chiefs to England-"laid the crown of their nation, with the scalps of their enemies and feathers of glory, at his majesty's feet, as a pledge of their loyalty." They not only stipulated, by treaty, to be the allies of England, in war and peace-but, by treaty, they were to surrender their own people for a violation of the rights of Englishmen, as well as Englishmen who might trespass upon them. By this treaty the King acquired a right to give a title to Cherokee lands, and the Cherokees became individually his subjects. Nor was their dependency and subjection to Great Britain in any way interrupted for twenty-five years. would be rewarded by plenty; tyranny absolved him from tribes having the semblance of government-the Five all allegiance to the place of his nativity; and his right to make this continent the grave of himself and the home of his posterity, was, that the Indian claimed territories too large for the condition in which God intended man should be; and that the land which was not in individual as well as in tribal use, and only in use for hunting, was not such an occupancy as excluded others from its enjoyment. or which created an ownership which it was unjust to invade. Nor can the right for which I contend be refuted, until it can be shown that no pressure of want or tyranny will justify expatriation, and that, in our necessities, we are debarred from casting our eyes to those new regions which science and enterprise have discovered, and which God intended for the support of all which its surface, aided by cultivation, can maintain. The Indian, a creature like ourselves, had his share in this new world-and christians, coming among them, had no right to trespass, but only to partake. This was only a share-not a political right, or jurisdiction or ownership, because God had placed him in the midst of these groves, mountains, and streams, to deprive his more civilized brother from resting in their shade, enjoying their grandeur, or partaking of their products, and to commit them as an inheritance to endless generations. I will not presume to inquire by what tremendous moral or natural convulsion a portion of the human race were separated from the rest, and allowed to degenerate into barbarism; but, knowing the fact, reason and the records of divinity tell me, as well by precept as by example, that, when resisted by the man of Europe, the savage of America was not in the condition which God intended his creatures to be-that their rights over soil or territory were limited to what they could catch or kill, to appease the cravings of hunger -to the spots upon which they may have built their huts -and that they had no such jurisdiction over the land, as would have justified them in refusing to receive from the emigrant a something as the pledge that they were to live in amity with him. In this branch of the discussion, sir, I have advanced no principle inconsistent with the most rigid morality-none which it not has been convenient to gentlemen, in the ardor of their opposition, to forget; and I have been forced to occupy the time I have taken, the more effectually to disabuse the minds of many of a misconception of Indian rights over soil and territory, and of that amiable sympathy for early Indian generosity, which has been so dextrously turned into opposition to the present administration by the plaintive retrospection of our adversaries. When the disputes between the French and English, concerning their territories in America, brought on war, the Cherokees again acknowledged their fealty to the King of England; and though, at the termination of the war, they were seduced from their allegiance by the artifices of the French, and by the misconduct of some of our people, yet the war with them ended in their complete subjugation by Grant, Montgomery, and Stewart. Hostilities, it is true, ceased by treaty, but they were not treated with as equals: and the King of England re-affirmed his sovereignty and jurisdiction over them, but left them in the undisturbed occupancy of their hunting grounde still retaining the right to grant them, only subject to such occupancy. And this sovereignty and jurisdiction were exercised in various ways, for more than twenty years, and were shown in the most undeniable character, when, in the war of the revolution, the Cherokees obeyed the orders of England, and laid waste the frontiers of the Carolinas and Georgia. When the constancy of our people terminated what had been gloriously begun, by a glorious peace, England, subdued where she had waged the war, surrendered her sovereignty and jurisdiction of every kind over all the people within the boundaIt is time, however, sir, to inquire into what was the ries of the United States. From that moment, not only political condition of the Indians in regard to England, Georgia, but every State in the confederacy, where Inafter the country was colonized. Did they continue to be dians were, asserted, by their legislation, a jurisdiction independent of that Government? And, if not, what por-over them and their lands; and, until very recently, nottion of their independence was surrendered voluntarily, withstanding the nature of the intercourse between the or taken away by conquest? Did the Indian, after having surrendered the right which he claimed to sell his hunting grounds, by acknowledging the pre-emption of them to be in Great Britain, retain any thing to himself but a qualified right of occupancy, with a political and civil jurisdic tion over their persons and lands in the King of England I shall not, of course, detain the House with references to the history of the many tribes of Indians which acknowledged themselves to be subjects of the King of England previous to 1756: but, in illustration of the jurisdiction claimed by the English over the Indian, and practically asserted, it will be well to refer gentlemen who deny any jurisdiction to the States over the Indians living in their limits to the historical recollections of the treaties of Rys wick and Utrecht, between the English and French, and the last of which was ratified in 1713. In those treaties we find the English claiming dominion, exercising sovereignty, which was acknowledged by the Indians them selves, and admitted by the French, over the most formidable association of savages in North America, and the only tribes and the United States, this jurisdiction of the States over the Indians within their limits had not been denied, even by implication. Nor is it now denied entirely, except in behalf of the Cherokees, who are supposed to be released from its operation by virtue of treaties between that tribe and the United States. The weakness, however, of such a pretence shall be shown, when the provisions of those treaties shall be examined, as they will be before I conclude. The jurisdiction, sir, of which I speak, did not extend to a right, upon the part of the States, to deprive the Indians of their hunting grounds, without a cause, and without compensation; but it was exercised, as it had been done by England, in preventing them from selling any of their land without permission from the States-though they were granted by the States without consulting the tribes, and the grantees took their titles, disburdened of every lien or encumbrance except Indian occupancy. The States claimed, and without any exception the Indians acknowledged they had a pre-emption of their lands. The 66 MAY 24, 1830.] Removal of the Indians. [H. of R. States regulated their trade; and this without treaty stipu-| While, sir, I am upon the subject of Massachusetts julations, but in virtue of the authority to do so, which the risdiction over the Indians, permit me to remind those of Indians had conceded to England. The States punished her citizens representing her in this House, and who are so them for violations of law, whether committed within the tender of Cherokee rights, that their State has distinguishterritory which had been reduced practically under their ed itself by one memorable instance of punishment for police, or without it. And, in short, the jurisdiction was a denial of her sovereignty over the Indians. The name asserted in every particular, and nothing was left to the of Roger Williams is familiar to the ears of gentlemen from Indians but an authority over each other, which, as savages, the East; and the memory of the man is dear to all who they had exercised, and which, in our then condition, it love to trace the beginning of that christian liberty which was inconvenient for the States to assume. This jurisdic is now exhibiting itself in triumph in every part of Europe, tion was asserted by Massachusetts as early as 1672; and and which we so fully enjoy; for he was among the forethe Indians' right to land in that "jurisdiction," was limit most, if not the first, of those men in England or America, ed by statute to such as they had "possessed, improved, who well understood, and were bold enough to preach and subdued." At the same time, the Indians' right to christian toleration. Williams, however, was a politician sell land was prohibited, by severe penalties, without as well as theologian; and though there was much conlicense from that court." Nor were they permitted to tention concerning his orthodoxy, which exposed him to “make grants for a term of years." All trade with the persecution, his life will bear me fully out in the declaraIndians in that province was forbidden, under the penalty tion that he would never have been banished, if, in the of a confiscation of the merchandise, “because the trade zeal for Indian rights, he had not said that the charter of of furs with the Indians in this jurisdiction doth properly Massachusetts was good for nothing, as the soil and sovebelong to the commonwealth." And his excellency the reignty were not purchased from the Indians. Neither Governor, with the consent of his council, was empowered threats nor persuasions could prevail upon him to refrain to "appoint and commissionate discreet persons, within from the promulgation of this political opinion; and the several parts of this province, to have the inspection and magistrates of the commonwealth combatted it in the shortmore particular care and government of the Indians inest way, by a sentence of banishment. Sir, the State of their respective plantations; and to have, use, and exercise Georgia claims at the hands of the delegation from Massathe power of a justice of the peace over them, in all matters, chusetts, in her present controversy, the benefit of this civil and criminal, as well for the hearing and determining instance of the exercise of her sovereignty; and leaves, for pleas between party and party, and to award execution their consolation, the reflections which may be drawn from thereon, as for examining, hearing, and punishing of crimi- the remembrance that the jurisdiction over the Indians nal offences, according to the acts and laws of this province, within her limits, for which she contends, is sanctioned by so far as the power of a justice does extend; as also to the persecution of one of the most remarkable men of the nominate and appoint constables and other proper and age in which he lived, on account of his denial of it to necessary officers among them." Massachusetts. It would only have been discreet, too, in gentlemen Connecticut, too, sir, was not behind her elder sister in` from Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, and New York, the assertion of her jurisdiction and sovereignty over the who have zealously distinguished themselves by opposition Indians within her chartered limits; and we find her early to the measure now before us, to have examined more declaring "that all lands in this Government are holden minutely than they appear to have done, into the nature of the King of Great Britain, as the lord of the fee; and and extent of the jurisdiction claimed by the States over that no title to any lands in this colony can accrue by any Indians living in their limits. If they had done so, it is purchase made of Indians, on pretence of their being nareasonable to think that the fear of the re-action of their re-tive proprietors thereof, without the allowance and approproaches against the State of Georgia, for having excluded|bation of this Assembly." She restrained and regulated the Cherokees from giving testimony, but in certain cases, trade with them as she pleased: and directed her selectin her courts, would have restrained them from the free men to endeavor to assemble the Indians annually, “and indulgence of their regrets in that regard. Sir, in the acquaint them with the laws of the Government for the State just mentioned, as the law stands at this day, the punishment of such immoralities as they may be guilty of, evidence of an Indian, though sustained by strong "con- and make them sensible that they are not exempted from curring circumstances, amounting to a high presump- the penalties of such laws, any more than his Majesty's tion," in the only case in which an Indian is permitted by other subjects in the colony are." Purchases of lands from statute to testify, is nullified by the accused, if he will but the Indians, "under color or pretence of such Indians swear the accusation to be untrue. Nay, sir, so far is this being the proprietors of said lands by a native right," withjurisdiction carried by Massachusetts, that a devise of real out leave from the Assembly, are forbidden, under severe estate by an Indian was, and is to this day, null and void; penalties. The testimony of an Indian, though sustained and so uninterrupted has been the paternal superintend- by strong circumstances, is of no avail, if the accused will ence of that State over these children of the forest, who but swear to his innocence. And, notwithstanding Conhave been cruelly subjected to laws, under which at least necticut, by her representatives on this floor, remonstrates their numbers have not increased, though admirably cal-against any civil jurisdiction over the Cherokees by the culated to give happiness, strength, and respectability to their masters, that, as late as 1805, we find statutory guardians appointed to have the care and oversight of said Indians and their property, with full power to superintend All conveyances by them of lands in fee, or for a term of years, are declared to be "utterly void, and of none effect, except approved by their guardians." And, by a statute passed in 1810, so wholesome has been the operation of Massachusetts legislation upon the morals and increase of the Indians within her limits, and so care fully have they assured to them the rights of freemen, that no action can be sustained in any court of law in that commonwealth, where an Indian is a plaintiff, unless the original will be endorsed by two or more of their guardians." the same. State of Georgia, her legislators, in 1808, and only so far back as 1821, passed acts subjecting Indians in her limits to the same punishments as are to be inflicted upon white men who may transgress her laws; and the regulation of their property and persons is committed to that kind guardianship which their degraded condition requires, and without which they would be constant victims of imposition. Sir, I pass over the laws of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, in all of which jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Indians in their respective limits are asserted, as well before the revolution as after it, and practised to the present day; and, though the gentleman from New York [Mr. STORES] has, by his manner of arguing this question, subjected the State which • H. OF R.] Removal of the Indians. [MAY 24, 1830. he represents, in part, to some animadversion, and himself protecting and supporting the said Six Nations of Indians, to reproof, I will content myself with remarking that no and their tributaries, for upwards of one hundred years State in the Union has more positively insisted upon her last past, as the dependents and allies of the said Governsovereignty over Indians, and their lands within her limits, ment." than New York; and that her civil jurisdiction over their 3d. "That the Crown of England has always considered persons, both by the decision of her courts and her statutes, and treated the country of the said Six Nations, and their is affirmed in the strongest terms, as well over those Iu- tributaries, inhabiting as far as the forty-fifth degree of north dians who have not ceded their lands to that State, as over latitude, as appendant to the Government of New York." those who have: and this, notwithstanding the establish- 4th. "That the neighboring colonies of Massachusetts, ment by the Indians of a Government for themselves, claim- Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, have, ing to be independent of that State, as the Cherokees do also, from time to time, by their public acts, recognised, of Georgia, and the existence of treaties between those In- and admitted the said Six Nations, and their tributaries, to dians and the United States, containing the same assurances be appendant to the Government of New York." of protection and guaranties of territory, which, it is said And, as a further reason for accepting the cession of by gentlemen on this floor, make the Cherokees a distinct land from the State of New York, to which this report and independent nation. Nor, sir, should we have heard related, it is concluded in these remarkable words: "That, a denial of the jurisdiction of the States over Indians with by Congress accepting this cession, the jurisdiction of the in their limits, if the too zealous anxiety of gentlemen to whole western territory, belonging to the Six Nations and defeat the administration, in this prominent point of its their tributaries, will be vested in the United States, greatly policy, had not caused an oblivion in their minds of the po-to the advantage of the Union." Words plainly showing litical history of our country. We have the records to show the jurisdiction to be in the State, and the State's right to that this claim of jurisdiction was collectively admitted by transfer it. Nor, sir, must it be said that these repeated the States, from the beginning of their first confederacy recognitions by Congress of the States' jurisdiction over until after the adoption of the present constitution; and it Indians within their limits, was owing to the terms in which will be for those opposed to us to prove when, how, and that part of the ninth article of the confederation giving to by what States, it has been surrendered to the United Congress "the sole and exclusive right and power of regu States. We call for the convention, agreement, the direct lating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians clause in the constitution, by which it is given up; or for not members of any of the States," is expressed; for the any other which, by inference or construction, can take it article is no more than the concession, embodied, of the away. States' jurisdiction: and the care with which it was intended to be retained by the States, is shown, by Congress only having conceded to it the power to regulate trade and manage all affairs "with the Indians not members of any of the States," and this, too, "provided the legislative right of any State, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated." But, in virtue of the authority given to Congress by the States over the Indians, Congress, by its proclamation of September 2d, 1783, exercised the authority which the Crown of England had done, in prohibiting settlements and forbidding purchases of lands inhabited or claimed by Indians, “without the limits or jurisdiction of any particular State." When it became necessary to prepare an ordinance for regulating the Indian trade, Congress exhibited the same commendable caution in regard to the States' jurisdiction over Indians in their limits, by resolving "that the preceding measures of Congress relative to Indian affairs shall not be construed to affect the territorial claims of any of the States, or their legislative rights, within their limits." But why, sir, should I fatigue myself, and exhaust the patience of this House, by citing additional proofs of what was the universal apprehension of the jurisdiction possessed by the States over Indians and their lands? Those who are curious in this matter, will see, by consulting the journals of the convention, how repeatedly, in framing the articles of confederation, it was acknowledged. There is enough, sir, to shield the State of Georgia from the imputation of setting up any And for the particular information of the gentleman from novel pretension in her claim of jurisdiction over the Che. New York, [Mr. STORRS] that he may hereafter know the rokees, and their lands lying in the State, and pursuing the true ground of that State's jurisdiction over Indians within course to which she has been urged by circumstances, her limits, and, in his future discussions of this subject, regardless of what may be said or thought. The State is either privately or in this House, that he may not mistake, prepared to maintain the position she has taken, against and mistake it to be from voluntary concessions by Indians any coercion which may be attempted, and her functionato the State, I refer him to the report of a committee of ries are ready to defend her rights before any tribunal Congress, May 1st, 1782, and ask to be permitted to read it: by which they can be constitutionally investigated. We 1st. "It clearly appeared to your committee, that all the ask for no more than other States have and continue to lands belonging to the Six Nations of Indians, and their exercise, without having their claims of jurisdiction over tributaries, have been, in due form, put under the protec the Indians in their limits questioned; and our authority, tion of the Crown of England, by the said Six Nations, as proceeding from the same common fountain, we shall not appended to the late Government of New York, so far as permit to be lessened, or any restraint to be imposed respects jurisdiction only." upon its exercise. Repeated calumnies against the State have taught her people to bear, with dignity, every slander upon its honor: and it is our pride that, though, in When a petition from a part of Virginia was laid before Congress, on the 1st of June, 1775, intimating “fears of a rupture with the Indians, on account of Lord Dunmore's conduct," and desiring commissioners to attend a meeting of the Indians at Pittsburg, it was ordered" that the above be referred to the delegates of the colonies of Virginia and Pennsylvania." Nor were there any subsequent proceed ings in regard to it, without the consent and co-operation of those States. In less than six weeks, Congress, aware of the efforts made by Euglish emissaries to excite the Indians to take up arms against the colonies, took such steps as the exigency required, to secure their friendship and neutrality; and three Indian departments were formed-the Northern, Middle, and Southern. But in none of their subsequent measures was the jurisdiction of States, over Indians in their limits, in any way infracted. And the first proof in support of the declaration I have made, is to be found in the proceedings of Congress on the 2d November, 1782, when a deputation from the Catawba tribe urged Congress to secure to them certain lands in South Carolina, to preserve them from being "intruded into by force, and not to be alienated, even with their own consent." Congress knowing where the jurisdiction was, Resolved, "That it be recommended to the Legislature of South Carolina to take such measures for the satisfaction and security of the said tribe, as the said Legislature shall, in their wisdom, think fit." 2d. "That the citizens of the said colony of New York have borne the burden, both as to blood and treasure, of |